Limiting God

[LinuxGal]

Now, I don't believe the Lord really wanted that. This is a case where there may have been a mistranslation, or someone altered the text, or the original author had an agenda. But again, that's not to say we can't find good messages in Samuel, just that I don't believe the Lord commanded that particular thing.

And yet, this particular thing initiated a chain of events that led to David being seated on the throne of the whole House of Israel, rather than Saul, and David was in the line of the Messiah. So go figure.

[Traveler]

Interesting! I pointed out that the scriptures start with G-d separating light from darkness. How we view how light is separated from darkness is rather interesting. For some genocide is not out of the question in completing such separation. What is interesting to me is that in all instances where one goes about separating - they think themself as part of the light and that which they do not like or accept as "darkness" from which they intend to separate from them.

Maybe it is the attitude of exclusion and superiority that is the darkness that G-d intends to remove. That would mean that those that think to separate themselves (saved) are the first that G-d intends to separate from his flock of light.

The Traveler

[LinuxGal]

Maybe it is the attitude of exclusion and superiority that is the darkness that G-d intends to remove. That would mean that those that think to separate themselves (saved) are the first that G-d intends to separate from his flock of light.

This it is said:

The path into the light seems dark,

the path forward seems to go back,

the direct path seems long,

true power seems weak.

[prisonchaplain]

God gets to judge his creation. For me, that's a basic. If a society is so completely corrupt that it must be destroyed, then it is likely a mercy to the rest of creation that He does so--or orders it to be done. Such a thing is not to be done lightly, and no one should blithely assume they know God's will in such a matter. However, God is God. He is our ultimate justice.

[Traveler]

God gets to judge his creation. For me, that's a basic. If a society is so completely corrupt that it must be destroyed, then it is likely a mercy to the rest of creation that He does so--or orders it to be done. Such a thing is not to be done lightly, and no one should blithely assume they know God's will in such a matter. However, God is God. He is our ultimate justice.

Are we to believe that what ever G-d allows to occur in regards to his creations are his judgments falling upon them? That children abused is G-d judging his creation? This sound obserd but that was the very question asked of Jesus concerning a man blind since birth.

The question is - how does G-d judge his creations? If a person has little or no idea what is a judgment of G-d and what is not - I do not think they can say G-d is just or not. So for me it is backwards - I believe G-d to be just in his judgments - but I am not sure in all cases what we experience that is indeed a judgement of G-d. I believe that there are many things that occur that are are not the result of G-d judging us. But if it is not just - by my belief and understanding then it was not G-d but something else.

So then the other question is - why do bad things happen to good people?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Are we to believe that what ever G-d allows to occur in regards to his creations are his judgments falling upon them? That children abused is G-d judging his creation? This sound obserd but that was the very question asked of Jesus concerning a man blind since birth.

To be clear, we were discussing God's command that the Israelites completely destroy the Amalekites--including the babies and animals. The question is whether this is an immoral genocide, or whether God ordered it out of his righteous justice.

We were not discussing why bad things happen to good people. I'm not aware that anyone in this string has suggested that the rape of a child, or the beating of one, is God's justice towards the victim. The question of why evil is different from that of God's righteous judgments.

The question is - how does G-d judge his creations? If a person has little or no idea what is a judgment of G-d and what is not - I do not think they can say G-d is just or not. So for me it is backwards - I believe G-d to be just in his judgments - but I am not sure in all cases what we experience that is indeed a judgement of G-d. I believe that there are many things that occur that are are not the result of G-d judging us. But if it is not just - by my belief and understanding then it was not G-d but something else.

You have more confidence in your beliefs and understandings than I do in mine. I would respectfully suggest that God's justice may sometimes confound our limited understanding.

So then the other question is - why do bad things happen to good people?

The Traveler

You are tying these two questions together, and I'm not so sure they fit. I believe you are familiar with the standard evangelical answer that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God the resulting judgment corrupted nature. Additionally, as the knowledge of good and evil spread, evil-doers also brought evil upon innocents.

[Traveler]

To be clear, we were discussing God's command that the Israelites completely destroy the Amalekites--including the babies and animals. The question is whether this is an immoral genocide, or whether God ordered it out of his righteous justice.

We were not discussing why bad things happen to good people. I'm not aware that anyone in this string has suggested that the rape of a child, or the beating of one, is God's justice towards the victim. The question of why evil is different from that of God's righteous judgments.

You have more confidence in your beliefs and understandings than I do in mine. I would respectfully suggest that God's justice may sometimes confound our limited understanding.

You are tying these two questions together, and I'm not so sure they fit. I believe you are familiar with the standard evangelical answer that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God the resulting judgment corrupted nature. Additionally, as the knowledge of good and evil spread, evil-doers also brought evil upon innocents.

Let us make this as simple as possible - What are the things and kinds of things that occur as “just” judgments from G-d and what things that occur have nothing to do with G-d's justice?

Just for the record - I do not view G-d as the "rich kid" that owns the football so anyone that plays with him must play by his rules and agree that his rules are just. I think such thinking is misleading - even though it may seems very logical and debatable in a religious context.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

I see those passages and assume the Bible is accurate.

Not everything done in the Bible was God's will, but I do believe everything written was what God wanted written.

On what do you base this upon? The fact the the Bible is old?

If God would have wanted to keep his message perfect and clear -- like many people assume -- then why wouldn't he have kept Prophets around all the time and in every region?

Why would he have 1 book that so many people argue about what it really means as His only guide for us if He made sure it contained the messages He wanted us to have?

Sorry, but I have never understood why people think the Bible is infallible or perfect or that God maintains it the way he wants it to be.

[prisonchaplain]

Let us make this as simple as possible - What are the things and kinds of things that occur as “just” judgments from G-d and what things that occur have nothing to do with G-d's justice?

Just for the record - I do not view G-d as the "rich kid" that owns the football so anyone that plays with him must play by his rules and agree that his rules are just. I think such thinking is misleading - even though it may seems very logical and debatable in a religious context.

The Traveler

Perhaps our difference lies in our view of scripture--particularly the Bible? Even among the LDS I am guessing that some view the "as far as it is translated correctly" to be a very limited statement, simply suggesting that a few minor human translation errors are possible. Perhaps others believe it allows for the "liberal" understand that biblical inspiration is somewhat akin to Shakesperean inspiration--powerful, wonderful, God-infused stories--but ones to be taken as highly literary, and perhaps only somewhat grounded in history, and certainly subject to the human author's perspectives.

Count me in the first camp. Therefore, if a prophet says God called for the destruction of the Amalekites, then I assume that God called for the destruction of the Amalekits.

God is the one who gets to make the rules, since he made the game, the equipment and the players. Let me hasten to add that his rules are just and fair--and loving.

Edited June 18, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

On what do you base this upon? The fact the the Bible is old?

If God would have wanted to keep his message perfect and clear -- like many people assume -- then why wouldn't he have kept Prophets around all the time and in every region?

Why would he have 1 book that so many people argue about what it really means as His only guide for us if He made sure it contained the messages He wanted us to have?

Sorry, but I have never understood why people think the Bible is infallible or perfect or that God maintains it the way he wants it to be.

There are a few dozen doctrines that get debated throughout the centuries. However, the Bible is not obtuse. The most popular modern version (Protestant) is the New International Version. It's written at a 7th grade reading level. One translation I am aware of (New Life Version) is written at a 4th grade level. Even the KJV is at an 11th grade level--approachable by high school graduates who paid attention. And, for all the alleged divisions in our churches, we agree on so much. We cooperate more than ever in history. Most of the disagreements keep our theologians and professors busy, but cause precious little consternation for most followers of Christ. We keep the two great commands, and we follow the great commission....Love God and neighbor, and share the Good News.

How do I know the Bible is true? The same way you know your church is true--God's Spirit has confirmed his book in my heart.

[HEthePrimate]

Count me in the first camp. Therefore, if a prophet says God called for the destruction of the Amalekites, then I assume that God called for the destruction of the Amalekits.

God is the one who gets to make the rules, since he made the game, the equipment and the players. Let me hasten to add that his rules are just and fair--and loving.

Remember that the next time a terrorist flies an airplane into a skyscraper and claims God commanded him to do it.

[pam]

Remember that the next time a terrorist flies an airplane into a skyscraper and claims God commanded him to do it.

Perhaps you could have asked PC to explain more what he meant instead of a hit and run comment like that. That was rude.

[prisonchaplain]

Remember that the next time a terrorist flies an airplane into a skyscraper and claims God commanded him to do it.

Except that those who did so are highly criticized by most Muslims. The radicalist interpretations of the Qur'an and of some ancient fatwas and commentaries are not legitimate "literal" ones. What they have done to Islam is akin to what the Westboro Baptists have done to Christianity. Very few thinking individuals take their "theology" seriously. It does not rise to a level where it is even worth legitimate consideration. Most of those who study it do so to understand the radical murderers, and perhaps to predict what may come next.

So...might I suggest that your example is a bit of a straw man--even within Islam, much less within Christianity.

[Vort]

prisonchaplain said:

Except that those who did so are highly criticized by most Muslims. The radicalist interpretations of the Qur'an and of some ancient fatwas and commentaries are not legitimate "literal" ones. What they have done to Islam is akin to what the Westboro Baptists have done to Christianity. Very few thinking individuals take their "theology" seriously. It does not rise to a level where it is even worth legitimate consideration. Most of those who study it do so to understand the radical murderers, and perhaps to predict what may come next.

So...might I suggest that your example is a bit of a straw man--even within Islam, much less within Christianity.

On the other hand...there sure seemed to be a lot of Muslims dancing in the streets over the terrorist act. Now, I realize that the fact that I saw televised images of some celebrating Middle Eastern types doesn't exactly prove anything. But it is not my impression that the majority of the world's Muslims condemned and abhorred those acts. It is my impression that the majority either approved of the acts or at least thought that somehow the deaths of thousands of innocents comprised the Evil USA getting its just deserts. I confess my impression could be wrong.

Did we see an immediate and heartfelt condemnation of these terrorist activities from Muslim nations or from any international bodies which could reasonably be thought to speak for Muslims in general? I don't recall that we did. But my memory may be faulty.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Vort

[pam]

The media will always show what will sell news.

[Vort]

The media will always show what will sell news.

True, but it does not follow that everything the media shows is necessarily unrepresentative of larger reality.

[pam]

True as well. My point was we can't always trust the media to give us a complete and accurate representation.

[Vort]

True as well. My point was we can't always trust the media to give us a complete and accurate representation.

Agreed. So my question is: Does anyone remember widespread condemnation of the terrorist activities by Muslim nations and/or organizations recognized as Muslim proxies? I may not often agree with many of HEP's stated views, but I think in this case there is an underlying point he brings up that should not just be waved away.

[pam]

Unfortunately if there were I don't remember. I can barely remember yesterday let alone 11 years ago.

[prisonchaplain]

On the other hand...there sure seemed to be a lot of Muslims dancing in the streets over the terrorist act. Now, I realize that the fact that I saw televised images of some celebrating Middle Eastern types doesn't exactly prove anything. But it is not my impression that the majority of the world's Muslims condemned and abhorred those acts. It is my impression that the majority either approved of the acts or at least thought that somehow the deaths of thousands of innocents comprised the Evil USA getting its just desserts. I confess my impression could be wrong.

I think there was a strong socio-political reaction that the USA got a little some of what they were delivering up. I disagree with the sentiment, but hardly view it as mobs gathering to applaud a wise and well-thought-out theological viewpoint.

Did we see an immediate and heartfelt condemnation of these terrorist activities from Muslim nations or from any international bodies which could reasonably be thought to speak for Muslims in general? I don't recall that we did. But my memory may be faulty.

Again, the reactions were political and social. Goliath got sucker-punched. I seriously doubt that those chanting in the streets were there to offer serious theological commentary on their Qur'an.

[Vort]

I disagree with the sentiment, but hardly view it as mobs gathering to applaud a wise and well-thought-out theological viewpoint...I seriously doubt that those chanting in the streets were there to offer serious theological commentary on their Qur'an.

But that is not really the point, unless you think religion is something you put on and take off like a hat.

[Desertknight]

On what do you base this upon? The fact the the Bible is old?

If God would have wanted to keep his message perfect and clear -- like many people assume -- then why wouldn't he have kept Prophets around all the time and in every region?

Why would he have 1 book that so many people argue about what it really means as His only guide for us if He made sure it contained the messages He wanted us to have?

Sorry, but I have never understood why people think the Bible is infallible or perfect or that God maintains it the way he wants it to be.

I haven't posted here in a bit but have been lurking. I thought I would ask though, does your view represent your personal opinion that is divergent from the LDS church's or is that accepted belief of the church? As PC posted, I have also read the "as far as it is translated correctly" from LDS sources but did not know how far that went. I would be pretty surprised if such interpretations meant that the LDS view is that destruction of the Amalekites was not called for by God. Is this so?

Is the LDS OT translations different regarding recorded events such as this? Don't you guys use the KJV of the bible?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Desertknight

[Sicily510]

1 Samuel 15

Saul commanded to smite and destroy the Amalekites and all that they have----He saves some animals to sacrifice---Saul is rejected from being king, and told to obey is better than sacrifice---Samuel destroys Agag.

Samuel whom was the prophet at that time stated:

1 Samuel 15:1-2

1. Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

2. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19

17. Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;

18. HOw he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee when thou was faint and weary; and he feared not God.

19. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

The Amalekites were not god fearing, basically they were atheist they didn't believe in Heavenly Father. That is why heavenly father didn't want Saul to spare no lives nor livestock or possessions of theirs because they did not believe in him, however, Saul was disobedient. Saul kept their King alive and kept their jewels and livestocks. Hence the saying "To obey is better than to sacrifice", it's kind of like supporting not believing Heavenly Father when not obedient to his commandments. Hence Saul cannot be a King of people who believe in Heavenly Father. His actions and examples prove him that he is not humble nor meek to follow a higher law of understanding.

This is an example of free agency we do not conforms ourselves to the law of heavenly father, but we can choose to do at our own free will what we do.

And equality:

Ezekiel 18:25

25. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

26. When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall die.

27. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

I ask about where is morals in doing things that oppose to the laws of our heavenly father? And what is moral in the laws of human beings? Is sexaulity rights a transient cause or sound doctrines? As members we must be sound in our decisions of what's right, and if we were to fight for rights to protect the morals and virtues of such gospel and people who abide to such teachings we cannot support immoral behaviors but we can accept brothers and sister of our heavenly father (God).

Logics and reasoning is always a opening to allow society to think that the unnatural is normal, the normals are crazy, those who seek heavenly father are imagining things. I don't mind the fact that the bible is old, but it does cover up on every aspects of questionings, and as people we must read and learn for ourselves and not what we were told, it's a sin not to.

[prisonchaplain]

But that is not really the point, unless you think religion is something you put on and take off like a hat.

We are discussing whether or not it is reasonable to interpret the Bible as if it were God's truth. It was suggested that interpreting any book that way leads to religious terrorism, such as the 9/11 tragedy. My response was that the 9/11 tragedy was not a result of literally interpreting the Qur'an in a legitimate way. That the radicals have no more theological grounding than do the Westboro Baptists, and that those who cheer their wicked deeds do so out of social and political anger, not theological understanding.

Wicked people can use any writing for their purpose. Such abuse has no bearing on a discussion about whether the Bible is God's truth or not.

[prisonchaplain]

Does anyone remember widespread condemnation of the terrorist activities by Muslim nations and/or organizations recognized as Muslim proxies?

Here are 68 pages or so of such condemnations: http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/September_11_statements.pdf